books published about game design

I Have No Words & I Must Design:
Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games
Greg Costikyan
355 South End Ave #2B
New York, NY 10280, USA
(646) 489–8609
costik@costik.com
I ﬁrst heard the term “gameplay” when I interviewed for a job at Atari in
1982. It was used by someone who had just played a new arcade game,
Zaxxon, I think. “It has good gameplay.”
Since then, the term has become ubiquitous in the ﬁeld. People talk about
gameplay, as if it’s some magical, mystical thing that games need to possess.
Game designers like to paint themselves as “someone who understand
gameplay,” unlike all you coders and management types and artists. But
actually, few do – because “gameplay” itself is a nebulous, and therefore
pretty useless term. Saying “it has good gameplay” is about as useful as saying
“that’s a good book.” Calling something “good” doesn’t help us understand
what’s good about it, what pleasures it provides, and how to go about doing
something else good.
THE GAME IS PLASTIC
“The game” is an amazingly plastic medium. It’s adaptable to any and every
technology, from the neolithic to the high tech. And an amazing variety of
games have been developed over the years... Boardgames, wargames, tabletop
roleplaying games, computer and console roleplaying games, massively
multiplayer online games, live-action roleplaying games, MUDs, MUSHes,
MOOs, card games, collectible card games, play-by-mail games, play-by-
email games, miniatures, sims, ﬂight sims, vehicle sims, text adventures,
9 Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, ed. Frans Mäyrä.
Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2002. Copyright: authors and Tampere University Press.
graphic adventures, action adventures, shooters, sneakers, dancers, drivers,
real-time strategy, turn-based strategy, god games, platformers, fantasy
sports, sidescrollers, maze games, trivia games, puzzle games, wireless
games, location-based entertainments, gambling, paintball, sports, and the
horses….
They’re all games. But how to make sense of this amazingly disparate
ﬁeld? What is it about all these games that makes them interesting? Do they
even have anything in common, when you get down to it?
To understand games, to talk about them intelligently, and to design Greg
better ones, we need to understand what a game is, and to break “gameplay” Costikyan:
I Have No
down into identiﬁable chunks. We need, in short, a critical vocabulary for Words & I
games Must Design
INTERACTION
Back in 1982, Chris Crawford published what remains one of the few decent
books published about game design, The Art of Computer Game Design. In
his book, Chris Crawford contrasts what he calls “games” with “puzzles.”
Puzzles are static; they present the “player” with a logic structure to be solved
with the assistance of clues. “Games,” by contrast, are not static, but change
with the player’s actions.
Some puzzles are obviously so; no one would call a crossword a “game.”
But, according to Crawford, some “games” a really just puzzles – Zork
(Lebling & Blank), for instance. The game’s sole objective is the solution of
puzzles: ﬁnding objects and using them in particular ways to cause desired
changes in the game-state. There is no opposition, there is no roleplaying,
and there are no resources to manage; winning is solely a consequence of
puzzle solving.
Crawford overstates the case, I think; adventure games, the category to
which Zork belongs, are more than mere puzzles. They do change state in
response to player actions; you ﬁnd yourself in a new location, the solution
of a puzzle opens up new opportunities. In later games – Zork is among
the earliest successful computer games – character interaction and story
development are more important. Personally, I’d be reluctant to relegate
Zork to the status of “not a game, for shame;” it’s a game with strong puzzle
elements.
Almost every game has some degree of puzzle-solving; even a pure
military strategy game requires players to, e.g., solve the puzzle of making
an optimum attack at this point with these units. In fact, if a game involves
any kind of decision making, or trade-offs between different kinds of
resources, people will treat these as “puzzle elements,” trying to devise
optimal solutions. Even in deathmatch play of a ﬁrst-person shooter, players
will seek to use cover and terrain for advantage – ‘solving the puzzle’ posed
by the current positions of opponents and the nature of the surrounding
environment, if you will. You can’t extract puzzle from game entirely.
10
But still, Crawford’s distinction is a useful one: A puzzle is static. A game
is interactive.
This may ring a bell in the back of some readers’ heads; isn’t “interactive”
a term that refers to computer media? And aren’t many games non-digital? Is
Monopoly (Charles Darrow) interactive?
Of course it is. You choose whether or not to buy a property you land
on; the game state changes in response to your decision. The outcome of
the game will differ depending on your decision. The game interacts with
Greg the players (and the players with each other), changing state as they play.
Costikyan: Monopoly is interactive at its core.
I Have No
Words & I That’s true of every game. If it isn’t interactive, it’s a puzzle, not a game.
Must Design Some time ago, I was asked to teach a course on “Interactive Games.”
I’ve heard the term used before, by people who think they’re talking about
electronic games – arcade, console, and computer. They aren’t. Every game
is interactive; “interactive game” is a redundancy.
GOALS
But what does “interaction” mean, really?
Not much, actually. A light switch is interactive. You ﬂick it up, the light
turns on. You ﬂick it down, the light turns off. That’s interaction.
A light switch is not a game, obviously. Interaction has no game value in
itself. Interaction must have a purpose.
Suppose we have a thing that’s interactive. At some point, you are faced
with a choice: You may choose to do A, or to do B. The state of the thing will
change depending on your decision.
But what makes A better than B? Or is B better than A at some times but
not at others? What factors go into the decision? What resources are to be
managed? What’s the eventual goal?
Aha! Now we’re not talking about “interaction.” Now we’re talking about
decision making – interaction with a purpose.
What makes a thing into a game is the need to make decisions. Consider
Chess: It has few of the aspects that make games appealing – no simulation
elements, no roleplaying, and damn little color. What it’s got is the need to
make decisions. The rules are tightly constrained, the objectives clear, and
victory requires you to think several moves ahead. Excellence in decision
making is what brings success.
Perhaps decision making is too strong a concept; you can certainly think
about Chess or Civilization III or Dungeons & Dragons as games that depend
at their core on decision making. But in faster-moving games, like Quake or
Mario, winning depends more on quick response and interface mastery than
careful planning. There are still, certainly, decisions to be made – which way
to go, where and how to avoid opponents – but the basic style of interaction
is less cerebral, more dependent on ﬁne motor coordination and training in
particular skills. Nonetheless, even for skill-and-action games, interaction
is purposeful.
11
What does a player do in any game? Some things depend on the medium.
In some games, he or she rolls dice. In some games, he chats with his friends.
In some games, he whacks at a keyboard. In some games, he ﬁdgets with the
controller. But in every game, he responds in a fashion calculated to help him
achieve his objectives.
At every point, he or she considers the game state. That might be what
he sees on the screen. Or it might be what the gamemaster has just told him.
Or it might be the arrangement on the pieces on the board. He considers his
objectives, and the game tokens and resources available to him; he considers Greg
his opposition, the forces he must struggle against. He tries to decide on the Costikyan:
I Have No
best course of action. Words & I
And he responds as best he can to achieve his objectives – his goals. Must Design
Does every game have goals? Most do, very obviously; most games have
an explicit win-state, a set of victory conditions (to use a term from board
wargaming). The basic transaction we make with games is to agree to behave
as if achieving victory is important, to let the objective guide our behavior
in the game. There’s little point, after all, in playing a game without making
that basic commitment.
But some games do not have explicit goals.
Some years ago, Will Wright, in a speech at the Game Developers
Conference, described SimCity, which he designed, as a software toy. He
offered a ball as an illuminating comparison: It offers many interesting
behaviors, which you may explore. You can bounce it, twirl it, throw it,
dribble it. And, if you wish, you may use it in a game: soccer, or basketball, or
whatever. But the game is not intrinsic in the toy; it is a set of player-deﬁned
objectives overlaid on the toy.
Just so SimCity. Like many computer games, it creates a world that the
player may manipulate, but unlike most games, it provides no explicit
goal. Oh, you may choose one: to see if you can build a city without slums,
perhaps, or one that relies solely on mass transit. But SimCity itself has no
victory conditions, no objectives; it is a software toy.
That’s true – and in a sense, that is a failing. Some of Wright’s other
designs provide an illuminating contrast – SimEarth, for example. SimEarth
is a model of the evolution of life on Earth. It begins with a few single-celled
creatures, replicating in the ocean at the dawn of life. Over time, they evolve
into more complex animals, establishing a foothold on the land, spreading,
responding to changes in their environment, dealing with occasional
catastrophes. The game ends when intelligent life evolves.
SimEarth was published in 1990; it was a failure on the market. SimCity
has become a perennial, periodically updated, always selling strongly;
SimEarth has disappeared. Why?
Both games provide the player with a few parameters to manipulate, a
few things to do; both of them allow you to sit back and watch the model
beaver away for long periods of time. Unlike most games, neither requires
you to be continually and actively engaged. But there is one vital difference
between the two: SimCity supports a wide choice in goals. SimEarth allows
12
none; SimEarth has no goal, really. Ultimately, unless you purposefully set
out to thwart it, intelligent life will evolve, and the game will end.
“Playing” SimEarth is like ﬂicking a light switch and down. There isn’t any
point. SimCity, by contrast, lets you choose what kind of city you want, and
to struggle to make your city stable. You can try to build a suburban utopia,
with commuters using cars and no big central district. You can try to build
a centralized city with good mass transit and no heavy industry. You can try
a million things – and it’s always interesting to play again, because you can
Greg
Costikyan: always try something new.
I Have No Will is right; SimCity is, in a way, no game at all, a mere software toy. But
Words & I it, like a ball, is a good toy – it’s susceptible to so many goal-directed behaviors
Must Design that it is a good game despite the fact that it has no inherent “win state,” no
explicit, built-in goal for the game. SimCity works because it allows players to
choose their own goal, and supports a wide variety of possible goals.
SimCity is a game – at least when a user plays it as a game; SimEarth,
despite the similarities, is not.
SimCity is far from the only game to lack explicit goals. The same is true
of all paper roleplaying games – and of online MUDs, including graphical
MUDs like Ultima Online and EverQuest.
In both roleplaying games and MUDs, you control a single character in
an imaginary world. You often meet and group with other players, working
together in the world; non-player characters are either controlled by the
gamemaster (in paper RPGs) or automated systems (in MUDs).
In both types of games, character improvement is a key concept;
through play, your character can become more powerful, gaining hit points,
skills, spells, equipment, whatever. In many games, power is achieved by
killing things – that’s true in both Dungeons & Dragons and EverQuest, for
instance. In some games, power is achieved by fulﬁlling quests or reaching
story objectives, or by using skills whether they are used in combat or
in some other way. But whatever mechanism is used to enable character
improvement, character improvement remains fundamental to both RPGs
and MUDs.
We have a goal here already, notice; players are motivated to improve
their characters.
MUDs and RPGs are multi-player, social games; in both game styles, you
meet other player characters (PCs) and interact with them. You establish
ongoing relations with other players. You learn about the world itself – and
inevitably, you acquire other goals as a result. One of your friends may have
a task he or she wishes to accomplish – and likely, there will be opportunities
for you to become more powerful along the way, if you help them out.
The nature of the world itself (if well designed, or well conceived by the
gamemaster) and the connections you make with other characters provide
you with alternative goals.
There are times, in games of this type, when players feel lost. They’re
not certain what to do next, where to go, how to reach the next level of
power – or even if the motivation of reaching the next level is sufﬁcient.
13
As a roleplayer, there are times when I’ve been bored – when my character
has been sitting around an inn with other PCs, arguing about what to do. In
MUDs, there are times when I’ve felt bored at the prospect of going out and
killing more gnolls, and wondered what else there was to do.
What’s going on here? Just this: these moments result from the fact that
goals aren’t explicit in MUDs or RPGs. The goal of character advancement is
implicit, but at times that isn’t enough. I’m trying to ﬁnd the next interesting
thing to do; I’m searching for a goal.
In other words: The game is failing me. In the case of an RPG, it’s failing Greg
me because my gamemaster isn’t being a good gamemaster at that moment. Costikyan:
I Have No
A good gamemaster will sense when his players are getting bored, and give Words & I
them something to do. If nothing else, he can have a bunch of orcs show Must Design
up at the inn and start busting heads; that gives the PCs a goal right quick
– self-preservation is a good goal. In the case of a MUD, its because the design
isn’t supporting an adequate diversity of goals – simply slaying monsters and
taking their treasure does pall after a time, and a well-run MUD will provide
other mechanisms for character advancement.
In an RPG or a MUD, players ultimately choose their own goals. The job
of the game isn’t to provide explicit goals; it is instead to allow for a diversity
of goals, allowing players to pick and choose among them, to ﬁnd one that
appeals.
But that is not to deny the existence of goals; goals are as fundamental to
a MUD or RPG as they are to gamestyles that have explicit win-conditions.
Indeed, when players begin to feel they don’t have a goal worth striving for,
they begin to get restless.
Games are goal-directed interaction. But goals alone are not enough....
STRUGGLE
Every so often, the politically correct attack games as being “competitive”
and therefore bad. They have winners. They have losers. This is bad; we’re
supposed to nurture and support others. Why can’t we have cooperative
games?
“Cooperative games” generally seem to be variants of “let’s all throw a ball
around.” Oh, golly. What fun. I’ll stop blowing deathmatch opponents into
gibs for that, you betcha.
But are we really talking about competition?
No, we’re talking about struggle.
Here’s a game. It’s called Plucky Little England, and it simulates the
situation faced by the United Kingdom after the fall of France in World
War II. Your goal: preserve liberty and democracy and defeat the forces of
darkness and oppression. You have a choice:
A. Surrender.
B. Spit in Hitler’s eye! Rule Britannia! England never ever ever shall be
slaves!
14
Which did you choose? You chose B? Wow, good choice. Congratulations.
You won! Wasn’t that satisfying? Ah, the thrill of victory.
There is no thrill of victory, of course; it was all too easy, wasn’t it? There
wasn’t any struggle.
Competition is one way of make a game a struggle. In a two-player,
head-to-head game, your opponent is the opposition, your struggle against
him; the game is direct competition. And this is a ﬁrst-rate way of making
the game a struggle. Nothing is as sneaky and as hard to overcome as a
Greg determined human opponent. Chess is such a strong game precisely because
Costikyan: every move and every thought is dictated by the need to anticipate and deal
I Have No
Words & I with the moves and thoughts of the opponent; there is no struggle other than
Must Design competition in Chess, but this is quite sufﬁcient to make for a compelling
game.
But – competition isn’t the only way to create struggle.
Let’s make an analogy to ﬁction. The ur-story, the Standard Model
Narrative, works like this: Our protagonist has a goal. He faces obstacles A,
B, C, and D. He struggles with each in turn, growing as a person as he does.
Ultimately, he overcomes the last and greatest obstacle and brings about
some satisfying resolution.
Do these obstacles all need to be The Villain, The Bad Guy, The
Opponent, The Foe?
No, though a good villain makes for a ﬁrst rate obstacle. The forces
of nature, cantankerous mothers-in-law, crashing hard-drives, and the
protagonist’s own feelings of inadequacy can make for good obstacles, too.
Just so in games.
In a tabletop roleplaying game like Dungeons & Dragons, you sit around
a table with perhaps a half dozen other players and a gamemaster. Each
player has a single character in the game world. You all want to become more
powerful, and many of you have other objectives you wish to achieve as well.
But by the nature of RPGs, you are expected to cooperate with each other, at
least under most circumstances, in mutual support of your goals. You have
no “opponent,” at least not in the form of other players. There is no direct
competition among players (although arguments have been known to break
out when it’s time to divide up the treasure).
What provides the struggle in D&D? Monsters and non-player characters
(NPCs), for the most part. Your characters go “adventuring” together; the
adventure is a plot skeleton, a series of possible encounters and rewards. You
spend a fair bit of time slaying monsters and taking their treasure – D&D’s
experience system depends on this kind of behavior – as well as interacting
with NPCs, and trying to ﬁgure out the plot and bring it to a satisfactory
resolution.
Part of the struggle lies in the opposition posed by monsters and NPCs;
part of it in exploration of the world and the story; part of it in traps or
puzzles posed in the game’s physical world, or in social difﬁculties posed in
the game’s social realm. A roleplaying game has a gamemaster, responsible
for adjudicating the rules, playing NPCs, describing the world, and guiding
15
the story in a way that the players ﬁnd satisfying; he serves, in some sense, as
a combination of referee and playwright. Because RPGs are so ﬂexible – and
because a gamemaster exists – they can pose virtually as wide a variety of
obstacles as ﬁction.
Roleplaying games don’t need direct player opposition; they have plenty
of other obstacles for players to struggle with. Gaining power or achieving
your other objectives is always a struggle. If it isn’t, the gamemaster isn’t
doing his job – since he has so much control over events in the game, he
ought to be ensuring that it is a struggle, that his players are enjoying the Greg
game. Costikyan:
I Have No
In graphic adventures like Grim Fandango, the struggle is not competitive, Words & I
either – you do not compete against other real players, or against computer- Must Design
controlled “opponents,” for that matter. Graphic adventures are essentially
animated stories held apart by puzzles. There are cut scenes, but most
animation is performed by the game engine itself, in response to the player’s
actions. The story is not entirely linear; at each point in the game, the player
has freedom to wander about a fairly large space, interacting with several
characters, with several puzzles to solve. Some puzzles depend on solving
others, but some can be solved in any order. Ultimately, solving the puzzles
in a space allows the player to transit to the next space in the game, and
encounter a new set of puzzles.
You can, if you want, play a graphic adventure purely for the story – and
indeed, some adventures are good enough stories that playing them this
way is fun (Grim Fandango qualiﬁes). You can go out and buy a hint book, or
download a walkthrough from the Web, and solve the puzzles by the book.
You’ll get the story that way, and won’t have to think about the puzzles.
So – why don’t they just get rid of the puzzles? Why not just make it an
interactive story?
For one thing, you’d turn a thirty hour game into a four hour story – and
personally, I’m not going to pay $50 for four hours of entertainment. But
never mind that; without the puzzles, it’s no longer a game. There’s no longer
any struggle, no real work to getting through the game. The puzzles, and the
struggle involved in solving them, is what makes Grim Fandango a game.
Computer and console game developers are constantly grappling with
the notion of struggle; they know that if the game is too hard, players
will ﬁnd it frustrating. Contrariwise, if it is too easy, they will ﬁnd it dull.
Developers take considerable care – and spend quite a lot of time testing
– to try to ensure that the game is reasonably balanced. When feasible, they
include a way for players to alter the difﬁculty to suit – if it’s too easy, turn the
difﬁculty up; if it’s too hard, turn it down.
Whatever goals you set players in a game, you must make them work to
achieve their goals. Setting them against each other is one way to do that, but
not the only one. And even when a player has an opponent, putting other
obstacles in the game can increase its richness and emotional appeal.
16
STRUGGLE (CON’T)
The desire for “cooperative games” is the desire for an end to strife. But there
can be none. Life is the struggle for survival and growth. There is no end
to strife, not this side of the grave. A game without struggle is a game that’s
dead.
That may seem puzzling, at ﬁrst. Making something difﬁcult makes
it more enjoyable? That’s not how we view everyday life; if you make my
Greg job easier, I’ll thank you. Making my commute more of a struggle does not
Costikyan: make it more fun. We equate struggle and work and obstacles with pain, not
I Have No
Words & I
pleasure.
Must Design But it is absolutely true of games. We want games to challenge us. We
want to work at them. They aren’t any fun if they’re too simple, too easy, if
we zip through them and get to the endscreen without being challenged. We
don’t feel any sense of accomplishment, of mastery, of victory, if it comes too
easily.
That isn’t to say that we want them too tough, either. We feel frustrated
if, despite our best efforts, we wind up being slogged again and again. There
needs to be game balance – a term, incidentally that means very different
things for solitaire and multiplayer games. In a multiplayer game, it means
that the players need to feel that they’re on a level, that no one has an unfair
advantage; in a solitaire game, it means that the player has a reasonable shot
at winning, and that the harder he works and the cleverer he is and the better
he’s mastered the game, the better chance he has of winning.
Some time ago, I went to purchase cheese and paté at a shop in Greenwich
Village. After I ordered the paté, the counterman asked if I wanted cornichons
– a kind of small pickle the French eat with paté. Waving an arm grandly, he
said, “There can be no paté without cornichons.” He made a sale.
Well – there can be no game without struggle. A game requires players to
struggle interactively toward a goal.
STRUCTURE
My friend Eric Zimmerman likes to say, “Games are structures of desire.”
I don’t like the phrase, for two reasons. Firstly, it’s pretty obscure; it needs
to be explained before you ‘get’ it. Second, it makes games sound like a
whorehouse.
But Eric is on to something here. By “desire,” he means that games have
goals, and players mutually agree to behave as if the goal is important to them
when they play – the game creates a desire to achieve the game’s own goals.
By structure, he means that the interaction of the game’s rules, components,
software, etc. create a structure within which people play.
Children frequently invent their own imaginative games. “Cops and
robbers,” if you will, though my children are more fond of pretending that
they can change into animal form, or that they are 19th century children
magically transported to the modern era. There is, actually, not a great deal
17
of distinction between childhood “let’s pretend” and a commercial paper
roleplaying game; in both, each player takes the role of a single character in
an imaginary world. The main difference is that “let’s pretend” has minimal
structure. It doesn’t have complicated tables, algorithms, magic rules, or
character advancement; it doesn’t have an impartial gamemaster; and the
plot, to the degree there is one, is invented on the spur of the moment.
Yet even kids playing “let’s pretend” feel a need for some structure; they
invent rules for themselves, as problems arise. You can only transform into
a bird when you’re on the climbing structure in the park. If you want to Greg
attack someone, you have to ‘tag’ them. Our enemies, the ice giants, live in Costikyan:
I Have No
that statue over there, and we have to sneak around when we go near it. The Words & I
structure, like the plot, is invented as needed – but kids do feel the need Must Design
for structure, at times. Often, the structures they invent are preserved for
the next session of play; and when “let’s pretend” breaks down, it’s usually
because the kids can’t agree on a proposed rule. (“Bang bang, you’re dead.”
“No, I’m not! Who says? Why am I dead?”)
That’s deadly to any game; we all have to think we’re playing the same
thing, working by the same rules, within the same structure.
“Let’s pretend” has about the least structure of any game. In other game
styles, structure can be intensively codiﬁed, even rigid in nature. That’s true
of board wargames, for instance.
Wargames are played on boards printed with a hexagonal grid; the
hexagonal grid works much like the square grid of a chessboard. Military
units are represented by cardboard counters placed in the hexagons (or
“hexes”) of the board.
One of the basic wargame structures is the “zone of control” (or “ZOC”).
A unit’s zone of control consists of the six hexes directly surrounding it.
Some wargames use what’s called a locking zone of control. A zone of
control is “locking” if a unit gets “locked” when it moves into another unit’s
zone. Like this: You have a unit in a hex. During my turn, I move one of my
units next to yours. I can’t move any further – and can’t move my unit away,
or into any other hex, because I’m “locked” in place by your zone of control.
Later on, we’ll resolve combat – and that might result in your unit being
killed and removed from play, or I might be killed, or one of the units might
be forced to retreat. Then, we’d no longer be adjacent, and my unit could
move on its next turn (assuming it survived). But so long as the units remain
adjacent, neither of them can move.
All right, that’s one form of zone of control. Rigid zones of control work
a little differently, although the basic concept – a unit’s zone is the six hexes
that surround it – remains unchanged. A unit must still stop moving if it
enters a rigid zone of control; but if it begins its move in a controlled hex, it
can move out of the zone of control, into an uncontrolled hex, and continue
moving. It is never allowed to move directly from one controlled hex to
another, though.
A petty little distinction, right? But that petty distinction produces very
different styles of play. Locking zones of control tend to breed rigid, World
War I-like front lines, because once a unit is committed to the front, it’s hard
18
to reassign it. Rigid zones of control tend to produce much more ﬂuid, World
War II-like games, because a unit can always be withdrawn and devoted to
an attack elsewhere.
These aren’t the only kinds of zones of control, either. When I was a
teenager, I worked for a wargame publisher called SPI; at one point, I put
together a huge tome consisting of rules culled from all of SPI’s different
games – a reference for game designers, who could look at it to see what
techniques other wargame designers had previously invented. There were at
Greg least a dozen different kinds of zones of control – I don’t even remember all
Costikyan: the terms we used for them all: semi-rigid, ﬂuid, god knows what.
I Have No
Words & I So? So this: a zone of control is a building block for a wargame. Most, but
Must Design not all, wargames use them. Most also use terrain effects charts, and combat
results tables, and movement points – a whole series of concepts speciﬁc
to the board wargame. By combining these “rule mechanics,” you build a
structure. You build a conceptual framework that deﬁnes the working of the
game – and guides the players’ behavior within the game. Trivial differences
in the speciﬁc mechanics you use can produce major differences in player
behavior – as we saw with the difference between locking and rigid zones of
control.
In a boardgame, the structure is mostly contained in the literal rules,
although aspects may be contained in the topology of the board, information
printed on pieces or cards or other components, etc. The structure is
therefore directly perceivable by the player, although understanding it
requires effort on his part – he or she must learn and master the rules.
Electronic games work differently; much of their structure is invisible to
the user. It’s contained in compiled software code. In a boardgame, players
are responsible for operating the game as well as playing it, if you will; when a
calculation must be made or an algorithm applied, they must do so, referring
to the rules if necessary. In an electronic game, the “rules” are incorporated in
the software; a player gains understanding of them through experience, by
playing the game, and may well remain in ignorance of their speciﬁc details,
instead gaining a “gut,” intuitive understanding of their operation.
But the structure is there – and, to reinforce the point that game design
is different from graphic design – it is independent of the speciﬁc graphical
form in which the structure is represented to the player. The gameplay
algorithms, the “rules,” the numerical data that controls the behavior of
game items is independent from the image bitmaps or 3D models, the code
that displays them onscreen, the animations that indicate to the player that
a certain event has occurred.
Do electronic game structures affect player behavior in the same
fashion as boardgame rules? Unquestionably. For example, Ultima Online
and EverQuest are, in many ways, very similar games. Both are massively
multiplayer online games – graphical MUDs – set in fantasy worlds. In both,
characters advance mainly by killing monsters. In both, characters tend to
accumulate a lot of stuff that has real game value – weapons and armor and
magic items.
19
The two games have one seemingly minor difference; in Ultima Online,
you may attack and kill other player-characters. In EverQuest, you may not.
In both games, characters almost always have more valuable stuff on them
than monsters of equivalent power. Thus, in Ultima Online, the quickest way
to advance is to kill other player-characters. You get all those weapons and
armor and magic items.
As a result, Ultima Online is, under most circumstances, a Hobbesian
war of all against all, the game ﬁlled with a palpable fear as people ﬂee from
one another, trying to avoid potentially deadly encounters. In EverQuest, Greg
by contrast, players frequently stop to help each other out, strike up Costikyan:
I Have No
conversations with random passers-by and in general behave with a degree Words & I
of social solidarity. Must Design
Clearly, I prefer the latter – although Ultima has its strengths, too,
particularly in the fact that gamemasters are more actively involved in
creating interesting things for players to do. And there are players who prefer
Ultima’s style; in some ways, after all, it serves to create virtual communities
more effectively, since you have a much better chance of surviving if you join
with a group of others.
The point here, however, is that a small change in structure breeds a big
change in player behavior.
Literary criticism often speaks of the “structure” of a novel, but story-
structure is very different from game structure. The literary concept of
structure has to do with viewpoint; the treatment of time (whether the
story is told in a single, forward-moving narrative, or as ﬂashbacks, or
from viewpoints wandering in time); and the way in which the story builds
and releases tension. The structure of the story, however, creates a single,
unchanging narrative that the reader cannot alter. Narrative structure is one
dimensional, because you can follow only a single path through a story.
Game structure has to do with the means by which a game shapes player
behavior. But a game shapes player behavior; it does not determine it. Indeed,
a good game provides considerable freedom for the player to experiment with
alternate strategies and approaches; a game structure is multi-dimensional,
because it allows players to take many possible paths through the “game
space.”
It is important, however, to understand how and why game structures
do shape player behavior; indeed, understanding this is fundamental to
mastering the craft of game design. You cannot simply throw together a
bunch of different game elements, and expect them to cohere; you must
consciously set out to decide what kind of experiences you want to impart to
your players, and create systems that enable those experiences.
As an example of an artistic failure in this regard, consider again Ultima
Online’s encouragement of player-on-player conﬂict (called “player-killing”
or “PKing”). Did Garriott choose to encourage PKing, believing that this
would make for a more engaging game, that this is what players would want
in Ultima Online? Did he structure the game with intentionality, rewarding
PKing because he wished to encourage it?
20
Clearly not. His previous (solitaire) Ultima games made careful,
conscientious efforts to guide players into prosocial, moral paths. Garriott
takes the idea that games can have moral subtext very seriously. He was
doubtless appalled at the level of player-character murder in his game.
Why, then, did he design a game that encourages murder? Presumably
out of a libertarian desire to grant players free will, to allow them to perform
despicable acts if they so desire. EverQuest’s contrasting prohibition of PKing
is, to be sure, heavy handed; its sole justiﬁcation is that it works. But there
Greg are more sophisticated ways of structuring player incentives to the same end.
Costikyan: You could establish a heavy-handed government, with powerful non-player
I Have No
Words & I characters who hunt down and execute murderers. You could establish a
Must Design high bounty that makes hunting and killing murderers more rewarding
than murder. You could try to recreate, in the context of the game, the same
kind of kinship and community ties among people that prevent us from
murdering each other even in the absence of the police.
What you cannot do is assume that order will spontaneously arise
through the good will of players – at least, not when the rewards for murder
are intense and personal, while the rewards for acting like a good citizen
accrue mainly to others, are slight and diffuse.
The structure of a game is analogous to the structure of economics.
Economists assume that people respond to the economic incentives they
face, and attempt to “maximize their utility.” By that, they don’t necessarily
mean that everyone tries to make the most money; money is only one
incentive people face. The desire for power or prestige or love can often
outweigh pure monetary considerations. But economists do assume that
people behave rationally, by and large.
The same applies in games. By and large, you can expect that a player will
respond to the incentives a game provides. Not always; players sometimes
delight in doing the perverse. But as I’ve said, one of the basic transactions
we make with a game is to agree to act as if its goals matter to us; thus, most
of the time, players will seek to exploit the structure to achieve their goals,
and that means responding to its incentives.
It helps, in other words, to think of a game’s structure as akin to an
economy, or an ecosystem; a complex, interacting system that does not
dictate outcomes but guides behavior through the need to achieve a single
goal: energy, in the case of ecosystems; money, in the case of economics;
victory, in the case of a game.
Indeed, if I had my way, a solid grounding in economics would be
required of anyone seeking to learn about game design.
A game is an interactive structure that requires players to struggle toward
goals.
ENDOGENOUS MEANING
You may have noticed that I’ve been using pretty simple language, for
a pretentious twit who thinks something as childish as videogames can
21
be subjected to critical analysis like real works of art. I mean, instead of
using words like “goals” or “struggle,” I could have coined highfalutin,
sesquipedalian words that would make it easier for me to impress academics.
But I haven’t been able to think of a simpler term than “endogenous” here, so
I’m afraid you’re stuck with it.
Endogenous meaning; what the hell does that mean?
According to the dictionary, one deﬁnition of endogenous is “caused by
factors inside the organism or system.”
Just so. A game’s structure creates its own meanings. The meaning grows Greg
out of the structure; it is caused by the structure; it is endogenous to the Costikyan:
I Have No
structure. Words & I
Suppose you’re walking down the street, and someone gives you a $100 Must Design
in Monopoly money. This means nothing to you; Monopoly money has no
meaning in the real world. The guy who gave you the bill is probably some
kind of lunatic.
Yet when you’re playing Monopoly, Monopoly money has value; Monopoly is
played until all players are bankrupt but one, who is the winner. In Monopoly,
the gaily colored little bills that come with the game are the determinant of
success or failure. Monopoly money has meaning endogenous to the game
of Monopoly – meaning that is vitally important to its players, so much so
that you have to watch your little sister like a hawk to make sure she doesn’t
swipe bills from the bank when you aren’t looking.
Another example: My EverQuest character, when 7th level, was given a
Bloodforge hammer by someone who was leaving the game and decided to
give the weapon to me. It’s possible to earn a Bloodforge hammer yourself, by
fulﬁlling a fairly involved quest in the game; I had little chance of succeeding
in such a quest at 7th level. The Bloodforge hammer was a truly awesome
weapon, for me, and instrumental in allowing my character to advance
quickly.
The Bloodforge hammer exists solely as an 3D model rendered on the
screen as you play EverQuest, and as a set of numerical and logical values
used in processing by EverQuest’s game servers. It has no concrete, real-world
expression, and no value in any context other than the game of EverQuest.
That’s not quite true; I could go to eBay, and auction off the Bloodforge
hammer, if I wished, and earn tangible money for it. I have no idea how
much, actually, but I’m sure it’s possible; people do frequently auction off
characters or possessions or game money from Ultima Online and EverQuest.
So one can argue that the Bloodforge hammer has ‘real world meaning,’ since
I can transform it to hard US currency.
Nonetheless, its real-world value exists only in the context of EverQuest;
if Verant, EverQuest’s publisher and operator, goes out of business tomorrow,
and the EverQuest servers shut down, my notional possession of a Bloodforge
hammer will immediately cease to have meaning – and no one will be willing
to pay money for it.
Do we have a complete and hermetic deﬁnition of “game” yet? An
interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle
toward a goal?
22
Sometimes, it’s useful to test a deﬁnition to make sure it includes all the
things we want to include, and excludes those we don’t. Thus: Is the stock
market a game?
A stock market is interactive; if you trade a stock, you affect the price for
the stock. Most of the time, you affect it marginally, but if the stock is thinly
traded, or you are an institutional investor and are trading a great many
shares, you will move the stock quite noticeably.
The stock market certainly has a structure – one enshrined in law, in
Greg fact.
Costikyan: Trading in the stock market is certainly a struggle; it’s not easy to out-
I Have No
Words & I perform the S&P 500, as any investment manager can attest.
Must Design And the stock market certainly has a goal; “players” seek to make
money.
But the stock market’s meaning is not endogenous. What we trade on
the market – shares in companies – would still have meaning even if the
stock market evaporated tomorrow. True, if the New York Stock Exchange
disappears tomorrow, it will be difﬁcult for me to sell my shares in General
Motors; the stock market provides a liquid, responsive, easily-reached
market for shares. But the stock market is not the only market for shares;
people do buy and sell shares in privately-held corporations, ones that have
no stock-market listing, for existence. Venture capitalists do that every day,
taking part ownership of the companies they provide the capital for.
It’s hard to ﬁnd buyers or sellers of shares in companies that are not
publicly traded – and it’s hard to determine a ‘fair market value,’ because
there is no active, liquid market in the shares of such companies. But the
shares have real world value: They represent part control of a company, and
a stake in its dividends and future growth. The stock market is a mechanism
for making trading easier; it is not the creator of meaning for the shares
traded through the market.
The difference between the stock market and a game is the difference
between non-ﬁction and ﬁction. Both non-ﬁction and ﬁction are prose
works; many of the same writing techniques apply to both, and (high quality)
non-ﬁction writing is deemed worthy of the name “literature,” just as ﬁction
is. But there is a fundamental distinction between them: non-ﬁction at least
attempts to be “about” the real world, while ﬁction is fantasy.
Games are fantasy. I don’t mean that all games are about orcs and elves
and magic spells, although far too many are; I mean that they ain’t real. The
fact that they aren’t real is part of the point. Like ﬁction, games provide their
own context; in a novel, a writer paints a picture of the world, portrays
characters, provides context for the reader. Even if much of what the novel
contains is drawn from the real world, the reader is expected to understand
that this is not an accurate portrayal of real events; instead, he is supposed
to be drawn into this unreal context, to take enjoyment from the events
and characters described, and from the artist’s skill in describing them.
Sometimes, ﬁction recontextualizes everyday things in an unexpected way;
as Samuel R. Delaney points out, the phrase “Her world exploded” has a very
23
different meaning in a science ﬁction novel from in a realistic ﬁction novel
– and still yet another meaning in a porn novel.
Games do the same. “Bloodforge hammer” has no meaning, except in
the context of EverQuest. The word “pawn” certainly has a meaning external
to Chess, but it has a speciﬁc meaning in the context of the game that is
thematically linked but otherwise independent to the external meaning of
the word. A royal ﬂush is a meaningless set of pasteboard cards, except in the
context of Poker. Achieving a kill in a Quake deathmatch will do nothing for
you in the real world, but may elicit glee or satisfaction when you’re playing Greg
the game. Costikyan:
I Have No
I should note that the likeness between games and ﬁction should not Words & I
be taken too far; many games are “non-ﬁction,” in the sense that they Must Design
are attempts to portray or simulate real-world events with some level of
accuracy.
Fifteen years ago, I worked on a game called Imperium Romanum II
(Albert A. Noﬁ), which was a serious and scholarly attempt to simulate the
Roman civil wars from the conﬂict between Marius and Sulla to Justinian’s
attempt to reconquer the Empire; the designer’s research and his meticulous
attention to detail was amazing. I maintain, quite forcefully, that you can
learn more about the Roman military, its changes over the course of the Late
Republic and the Empire, and the nature of internal conﬂict in the Empire,
by studying Noﬁ’s game than from any six books on the subject. In some
cases, games are better than narrative, because they allow you to explore a
system, to experiment with alternatives, while linear narrative must stick to
the literal events and not the possibilities.
Imperium Romanum II is a non-ﬁction game; but game it is. The concept
of a legion has external reality, but in the context of the game, it is a die-
cut cardboard counter with certain numerical values and capabilities. The
concept of a Roman road is drawn from the real world, but in the game it
reduces the movement point cost for entering hexes in certain provinces.
The concept of a province is real, but in the game, a province is a collection
of hexes that jointly provide tax revenue to the player that owns it. Imperium
Romanum II is drawn from reality, but it recontextualizes that reality to
establish its own, endogenous, meanings.
INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
At last we have a functional deﬁnition of “game”: an interactive structure of
endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.
A question almost immediately arises: If “the game” is a subset of
“interactive entertainment,” what forms of interactive entertainment are
excluded by our deﬁnition?
My answer: None. Or none worth the powder to blow them to hell,
anyway.
Many people would disagree. There are any number of “interactive
entertainment” sites on the Internet, for instance, that are entirely devoid
24
of games. But if you explore them, you’ll ﬁnd that they are nothing of the
kind; rather, they are using Internet technologies to provide a non-interactive
experience. A site that provides articles for you to read, or video clips to
watch, or music to download is indeed providing entertainment – but it does
not allow you to interact with the entertainment in any meaningful sense. You
can get the same material from print, videocassette, or CD.
“An interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players
to struggle toward a goal.” What kind of interactive entertainment could be
Greg something other than this?
Costikyan: It could be unstructured. But I have a hard time to imagine a completely
I Have No
Words & I freeform, unstructured form of entertainment, unless it be simple
Must Design conversation – and certainly people ﬁnd online chat entertaining. But merely
because I ﬁnd something entertaining does not mean that it is entertainment; I
read quite a lot of history, for instance, because I ﬁnd it entertaining to do so
– yet no one views a work of history as entertainment, however entertaining
they may ﬁnd reading it. History has its own value – it has exogenous
meaning, if you will. Entertainment is a side effect, not the purpose. Similarly,
conversation may be entertaining, but it is not entertainment in se.
To be a form of entertainment, you require some kind of structure – and
you require endogenous meaning. The form must contextualize itself, it
must provide meanings that make sense in the context of the work itself
– ﬁlm and music and novels all do so. Only if the meaning has direct, one
to one connection with the real world is it not “endogenous” – as is the case
with history, or the stock market. And if the meaning is directly connected to
the real world, you have something of practical value; not an entertainment
form.
Perhaps our non-game “interactive entertainment” can eschew struggle?
This is feasible; works like Just Grandma and Me, an interactive storybook for
children, involve no particular struggle. You click on an icon, get a cute little
animation, read the words, and go on to the next page. Four year olds ﬁnd
this entertaining. And many of the old Voyager CD-ROM products essentially
did the same thing for adults; click on something, watch something cute, go
on. This seems pretty darn tedious to me – and it is, perhaps, indicative that
“entertainment CD-ROMs” basically no longer exist, except as games.
Or perhaps we can have “interactive entertainment” without a goal?
Again, in principle you can; you can have a pointless entertainment product,
an interactive thing that has no goal, no reason to interact with it, no
objective, no meaning. This is, er, pointless.
Theodore Sturgeon, a science ﬁction writer, grew up in a highly literary
family; as he tells the story, his parents used to read all kinds of ﬁction to the
children, including rather adult works like Moby Dick. When Sturgeon was
a boy, he (in all innocence) bought a copy of Astounding Stories, the ﬁnest
science ﬁction magazine of its day, with his own money, and brought it home.
His father seized it, tore it in half, and threw it in the trash. “That’s what we
do with garbage in this house,” he said.
Samuel Delaney calls literature that engenders such extreme repugnance
“paraliterature.” “This is an extreme reaction to a text,” he says – and it is.
25
Doubtless, much of what was in that issue of Astounding was drivel – but
Astounding also published some of the best science ﬁction of the 40s and 50s,
much of which is still in print today. One can debate the merits of science
ﬁction as a whole, but unquestionably, some science ﬁction has real literary
merit.
The search for “interactive entertainment” that isn’t games is motivated
by repugnance for games – those cheap, gaudy, violent, unpleasant, degraded
pop-culture entertainments for ill-read, ill-mannered little boy brats. It’s a
search by those who wish to achieve something “higher” and of greater merit Greg
and value than can possibly be achieved among such a puerile and repulsive Costikyan:
I Have No
form as “the game.” Words & I
In short, the search for non-game interactive entertainment is wrong- Must Design
headed, inspired by a failure to apprehend games and a foolish, reﬂexive
response to what they represent, in our culture, at this point in time.
Any form of “interactive entertainment” that isn’t a game must be non-
interactive; or not entertainment; or pointless.
Art can be achieved in interactive entertainment; it has been, and it will
be, and towering works of imaginative creativity will inevitably be produced
in the ﬁeld as it matures. But if you’re looking away from games, you’re
looking in the wrong place.
Interactive entertainment means games.
LEBLANC’S TAXONOMY
So we have a functional deﬁnition of games, one that provides some insight
into what we need to do to create compelling games – provide goals, create
endogenous meanings, establish a structure, make sure you make the player
struggle. But we still need to look at what it is about games that people ﬁnd
compelling, and to that end, I think it’s useful to borrow Marc LeBlanc’s
taxonomy of game pleasures. He says there are eight: one is sensation, by
which he means sensory pleasure.
Sensation
Good visuals provide one form of sensory pleasure; we like pretty games.
Audio is important. For some games, tactile pleasure is important, too;
sometimes a game’s controls just feel right. For some games, muscle pleasure
is important as well – sports, obviously, but perhaps that’s part of the appeal
of Japanese arcade dance games, like Dance Dance Revolution.
As an example of the difference that mere sensation can make, consider
the boardgame Axis & Allies. I ﬁrst bought it when it was published by Nova
Games, an obscure publisher of hobby games. It had an extremely garish
board, and ugly cardboard counters to represent the military units. I played
it once, thought it was pretty dumb, and put it away. Some years later, it
was bought and republished by Milton Bradley, with an elegant new board,
and with hundreds of plastic pieces in the shapes of aircraft, ships, tanks,
26
and infantrymen – I’ve played it many times since. It’s the sheer tactile joy
of pushing around little military ﬁgures on the board that makes the game
fun to play.
It’s important to recognize, however, that graphic design, or media design
more generally, is not in itself game design. This is a fallacy many who do not
understand games make – because what they see when they watch someone
playing a game is motion on a screen. It’s natural to think that game design
is like screenwriting, or movie production. On many occasions, people from
Greg Hollywood have tried to move into our ﬁeld, claiming that they “understand
Costikyan: entertainment” – which they do, at least, they understand visual, linear
I Have No
Words & I entertainment. They tend to produce beautiful but dull games.
Must Design Creating sensory pleasure is important, and when you design, it’s worth
thinking about how you will do so. But it’s a supporting factor, not the
essence of design.
Beautiful games can, in fact, be virtually devoid of sensory pleasure. In
my opinion, NetHack is one of the ﬁnest games ever developed; it’s a game I
still play, and have had on every computer I’ve owned for more than 15 years.
And it’s pure ASCII graphics.
Fantasy
LeBlanc’s second category of pleasure is fantasy. By this he does not literally
mean a setting with orcs and elves and magic spells, but something analogous
to the ﬁctional concept of suspension of disbelief.
Just as it is fun to lose yourself in a novel, whether it is set in the present
day, with characters you might encounter at the mall, or set in some past,
future, or entirely imaginary world, so it is fun to lose yourself in the ﬁctional
constructed world of a game.
Abstract games, like chess, do not do well on this score; because they have
so few points of connection to anything other than their own endogenous
meanings, they offer little fantasy appeal. That’s not a ﬂaw; I don’t think chess
would beneﬁt from a beginning cut scene explaining about how the game is
a war between two brothers.
But when you’re designing games, it’s important to think about how
everything you do helps sustain a sense of place, of immersion in the
universe of the game. Simple things, like writing in appropriate language,
or using a graphic style appropriate to the setting, or using systems that feel
like they simulate some aspect of the setting, all help reinforce the fantasy
of the game.
Narrative
The question of whether or not games are, or should be, or should not be
story-telling engines is a contentious one – there are those who maintain that
every game requires a story, and those who claim that game and story are in
direct opposition, and those who say that story is a useful element in some,
but not all games. Personally, I tend toward the latter opinion – Chess would
27
not be improved by adding a cut scene at the beginning, explaining how the
game is about a war between brothers – but a graphic adventure without a
story would be dull indeed.
But by “narrative,” LeBlanc doesn’t literally mean attachment to a story.
What he means is something closer to this: games should support a sense of
drama.
Doubtless you’ve been in English classes in which your teacher
diagrammed a story’s arc – typically, it’s a sense of rising tension, leading to a
climax. That’s a useful way to think about games, too; rising tension, leading Greg
to a climax and a sense of accomplishment. Sometimes, lots of little peaks of Costikyan:
I Have No
tension, with moments to catch your breath between. Words & I
This is easier to accomplish in prescripted games, like graphic adventures, Must Design
than in more algorithm-driven games, like Civilization. But even in such
games, it’s worth thinking about how you can drive a sense of increasing
tension and drama over time.
Challenge
LeBlanc’s fourth category is challenge, which is equivalent to our notion of
struggle.
As I’ve argued, this is at the heart of any game; you may be able to dispense
with fantasy, or narrative, but you cannot dispense with challenge. And
when designing, you need to identify what it is that players are going to ﬁnd
challenging about your game, and why that challenge will be compelling.
And as I’ve said, you need to tune the challenge – quite likely during
testing, rather than at the spec level – to avoid making the game either too
easy or too hard.
This, incidentally, is one area where wireless games, and more generally,
networked games can do better than conventional games. In the world of
boxed product, you are stuck with what you ship – yes, you can offer a patch,
at least for PC titles, but most people won’t install it. If you made your game
too easy or too hard, you can’t change it later. In a networked environment,
you can watch to see how players react, and modify the game if necessary.
Fellowship
LeBlanc’s concept of fellowship is close to what people in online gaming
call community. Community is central to the appeal to such games; as
Gordon Walton, head of the Sims Online project says, “They come for the
game, they stay for the community.” As an example, consider the game Air
Warrior, originally launched in 1984 on the old Genie commercial online
service; and still in use today on EA.com. There are people in the game who
have subscribed to it continuously for close to two decades – and there are
people who continue to subscribe, but list themselves as “Captain so-and-so,
retired” – meaning they no longer actually ﬂy in the game, but come just to
hang out in the chat rooms and visit with their buddies..
More generally, shared intense experiences breed a sense of fellowship.
Think about what you talk about with your friends – maybe it’s sports,
28
maybe it’s shopping, maybe its books you’ve both read or TV shows you’ve
seen. But for gamers, it’s often the games they’ve played. Even ofﬂine, where
the experience is not shared directly, shared experiences provide points of
contact with other people, and reasons to feel friendly toward them.
Discovery
Discovery is another big part of the appeal of many games.
Greg In some cases, it’s literal: exploring the world of the game. There’s
Costikyan: something very emotionally compelling at the start of Civilization, for
I Have No instance; a little square of light about your lone settler, surrounded by a
Words & I vast dark world you have yet to explore. There’s something exciting about
Must Design
entering a new dungeon in EverQuest, hesitantly exploring the corridors and
caverns, alert at every moment for an unexpected, and potentially lethal,
monster at every turn.
But discovery can also be about revealing hidden information; that’s part
of the appeal of Poker, for instance, trying to ﬁgure out what someone else’s
downcard might be, or biting your lip as the dealer deals you a card that
might or might not complete your ﬂush.
And it can be a result of the sheer variety of the game space – Magic: The
Gathering is a good example here. There are so many different Magic cards
that if you play a lot, you’re always encountering one you hadn’t seen before
– and encountering decks that combine familiar cards in unexpected and
clever ways.
Expression
By this, LeBlanc really means “self expression”. Some, but by no means all,
games, give players a way to express themselves, to choose how they present
themselves in the context of the game.
This is obviously true of tabletop RPGs and MUDs and MMORPGs, for
instance. By the way we talk with others, by our choice of name, even in our
choice of dress, we say something about ourselves to others. And in many
cases, those interactions with others, whether in or out of character, become
one of the main reasons we play.
That’s true in classic games, as well; we play Hearts or Poker not so much
to experience the game itself, but to engage in a social activity with others.
Tabletalk is as important as play.
But it’s true, to a degree, in many soloplay games as well. In Deus Ex,
say, you can win as a violent bastard, shooting anything that gets in the way
– or win by sneaking around, persuading NPCs to help you, and avoiding
a gun whatever you do. In Black & White, you can choose the path of evil,
or of virtue. In Civilization, you can conquer the world, or win through
technological superiority, or make friends and get elected head of the UN.
Sometimes little tricks go a long way here. Even so little a thing as
allowing a choice of character name can give people a modest means of self-
expression. Or as another example, Dark Ages of Camelot lets people buy
29
dyes, to change the color of the clothing and armor they wear – something
that has no game effect, and costs ingame money, but gives people a means of
self expression. And they use it, too – they willingly spend money they could
spend actually improving their character’s weapons or armor, on something
so trivial as virtual fashion.
Masochism
This is an odd choice of words on Marc’s part, but perhaps not an entirely Greg
inappropriate one. I remarked previously that we don’t want life to be a Costikyan:
struggle – but we do want our games to be. What Marc means is that there’s a I Have No
pleasure to be gained by submitting yourself to the structure of a game. Words & I
Must Design
Submission to a game’s structure is the basic transaction we make when
we play. We don’t really care whether or not we get Monopoly money, but
when we play, we agree to act like we do. We don’t really care whether we
level up tonight in EverQuest, but we do our darndest to do so. We don’t
really care whether the Yankees beat the Giants... well, okay, maybe we do
care.
In fact, it’s awfully frustrating to play with someone who doesn’t make
that transaction, who doesn’t submit himself to the game’s structure. It’s no
fun playing Quake with someone who just stands around and makes snarky
comments in the chat. It’s no fun dragooning your little sister into playing
Stratego with you, if she just moves her pieces at random.
And it’s for damn sure frustrating to play with someone who cheats
– someone who pursues the game’s goals while seeking to violate its
structure.
Figuring out the structure, and ﬁguring out how to beat it, or manipulate
it to beat your opponents, or gain your goals in the gameworld, is what
gameplay is all about.
ARTISTS...
Artists – and a game designer, is an artist, working in the medium of games
– artists begin with imitation. If you want to be a comic book illustrator, you
begin by trying to draw Spiderman, or Superman, or like the Hernandez
brothers. If want to be a rock musician, you begin by copying the stylings of
guitarists you admire. If you’re a writer, you begin by writing fan ﬁc, or trying
to imitate the style of writers you adore. And if you’re a game designer, you
begin by trying to design a game like one you enjoy.
They then move on to mastery of technique. You use the techniques you
mastered, and try to combine them in novel ways – to borrow this aspect
of an RPG in a real-time strategy game, or think about how better you can
sustain a sense of fantasy, or take a novel setting to an established game
style.
And ultimately, artists work with a sense of intentionality. They
understand their medium thoroughly, and they seek not to imitate existing
30
work, or improve on it incrementally – but to conceive the effects they
want from the beginning of a project, to understand what techniques lend
themselves to those effects, and to execute the work so that each and every
aspect of it supports the desired goals.
In this ﬁeld – in any ﬁeld – there are only a handful of masters who have
achieved that ﬁnal stage, who work with intentionality, and create, as a
result, polished and innovative product.
Greg
Costikyan: WHAT MAKES IT A GAME?
I Have No
Words & I When designing a game – or playing one and trying to understand its appeal
Must Design
– you won’t do badly if you start with the tools I’ve discussed here – both
the deﬁnition I’ve provided for the game, and Marc LeBlanc’s taxonomy of
game pleasures.
Ask yourself: How does the player interact with the game? Are those
interactions meaningful? Is the process of interaction itself enjoyable – or
tedious, and if so, how could it be made it less so?
What kinds of goals does the game support? Is there a single winning
condition, or several? Or does it provide player-selectable goals, and if so,
what kinds of playstyles do you want to support, and what kinds of goals
should you therefore allow?
Do the algorithms that govern the games support what the designer is
trying to do with the game? Do they “feel right” in the context of the game
world, and the fantasy it attempts to sustain? Are they both complex enough
to pose difﬁcult choices to the players, and simple enough that the player
will not be mystiﬁed by the game’s behavior?
Where does the struggle lie? What obstacles must the player overcome?
How is the game enriched by alternative, or subsidiary problems? Is it too
hard, or too easy on the player?
What meanings does the game create? Does it make the player care about
how he does? What points of connection exist between game objects and the
real world? What insights does the player come to as he plays?
What Pleasures does it provide?
And what pleasures does the game provide?
Do the visuals dovetail with the theme and approach of the game? Can
they be made more beautiful? Does the voice acting suck? Should you
employ a professional writer for your dialog? Is the music great, or does it
make players start to ﬂinch after ﬁfteen minutes? Do the controls feel right,
or do people keep forgetting which button does what, or does it give you
carpal tunnel syndrome?
Does the game background sound like towering, heroic fantasy, giving
you the butterﬂy-stomach feeling you had when you ﬁrst read Tolkien, or is
it lame, stereotyped orcs and elves? Do players get immersed in the everyday
suburban world, its very familiarity helping make them care about the
characters, or is it simply dull? Do players get so into being the autocrat of a
banana republic that they start to talk in Spanish accents, or do they feel like
31
they’re playing some abstract force and don’t really connect with the game?
What fantasy does the game provide, and do the systems make players feel
that fantasy?
If there’s a story to the game, is it emotionally satisfying? Does it feel
that there’s a dramatic sweep to the game, or is the endgame dull, with your
opponents on the run as you grind out the last few conquest to get to a win?
When do players’ hearts pound, and why – and if the answer is “never,” what
do you have to do to get them on the edge of their seats?
Is the game a challenge, or too easy, or too tough for most people who Greg
play? Costikyan:
I Have No
Does the game create connections between the players, or do they never Words & I
feel a need to communicate with each other or talk about the game? How Must Design
can you create and sustain a sense of fellow-feeling, of shared experience,
of community in the game? Are their structures you can build around the
game – Richard Garﬁeld’s notion of the metagame – to build a greater sense
of ongoing participation? What are the social uses of your game?
How do players ﬁnd things out in the game? What new things do they
encounter over time? Is there a sufﬁcient sense of variability and novelty as
the game progresses, or does it become more of the same-old same-old after
time? How can you make exploring the game space more interesting?
What opportunities for self-expression does the game provide? How else
can you provide them, without encouraging your players to become profane
or antisocial?
Does it feel like fun to accept the strictures of the game, or do your testers
just hate some restriction? What feels arbitrary about the game, and how can
you make that aspect feel more like part of a coherent whole, a more natural
evocation of the game’s aesthetic and worldview? Where do you ﬁnd yourself
saying, “Damn, I wish I could do THIS....” And is there a way to let your
players do precisely that?
FINAL QUOTE
I want to leave you with this ﬁnal quote from Jung:
“One of the most difﬁcult tasks people can perform, however much
others may despise it, is the invention of good games.”
From the outside, game design looks easy. From the outside, writing looks
easy, and everyone in Hollywood wants to screw with the script. But actually,
this is among the most difﬁcult creative disciplines, precisely because we’re
creating structures that people are going to use in every possible way, and
use in ways we cannot anticipate. Games are an artform unlike any other,
because the product is not passively received, it is not something speciﬁed
to the last splotch of paint and every comma. Rather, a game, as it is played,
is a collaboration between the developers and the players, a journey of
mutual discovery, a democratic artform in which the shape of the game is
created by the artist, but the experience of the game is created by the player.
Game design is, therefore, the creative attempt to imagine, a priori, the
32
kinds of experiences players will have with your game, and through that
act of imagination, to create a structure to point them toward the kinds of
experiences you’d like them to feel.
In fact, game design is not merely difﬁcult; it is impossible. That is,
it is impossible, or virtually impossible, to spec a game at the beginning
of a project, and have it work beautifully, wonderfully, superbly from the
moment a playable prototype is available. There’s just too much going on
here, too many ways for it to fail. Game design is ultimately a process of
Greg iterative reﬁnement, continuous adjustment during testing, until, budget
Costikyan: and schedule and management willing, we have a polished product that does
I Have No
Words & I indeed work beautifully, wonderfully, superbly.
Must Design But your changes of getting that beautiful, wonderful, superb game will
be much higher if you begin with intentionality, begin by thinking about the
experiences you want your players to have, understand what makes a game,
and understand what pleasures people ﬁnd in them.
33